Creation

[Cyrusgames]

If you suppose that the creation references in the Bible are mythical/poetic, isn't it very possible that God could have created through the long and terrible process of evolution? This is because this is one of the very ways God can answer prayer.

If God answers prayer in ways which are not instantaneous but can work like a process or an ordeal, is it not also true that the process of Evolution functions in this same way?

To make the point further, after enduring a long ordeal or process in prayer, there may be a glorious answer from God, which --to us believers-- is unmistakably the work of God.  Such as praying for healing for a loved one with cancer and eventually seeing that person totally cancer free. It may be hard to determine what exactly God did in the process, but looking back at all the events we just think "praise God" and know He is in control even when it doesn't look like it.

This is just like seeing Creation as Evolution. We can look at the cosmos in its long ordeal of evolution and see that it has become something which is such a work that there are endless words to describe its beauty, intensity, terror, depth, tranquility, mystery and goodness. Just like that answer to prayer, we may not see how God was in control, but we as believers must see creation and the ordeal it went through in evolving and say "praise God" for what He has done.

[JackHavoc]

I agree to disagree.  The Biblical definition of creation cannot marry or meet the definition of evolution, because the two schools of philosophy don't agree at all.

I would just like to say, as a Christan you must believe what the Bible says, for it is the word of God.  If you cannot take the first chapter of the first book seriously I would not bother reading the rest, for you would most likely treat it like the first.

[Benzene]

A mythical or poetic Genesis isn't possible. First off there are poetic books in the bible (Psalms) and the language compared is very very different. There are rare pieces of poetry in Genesis that comment on events that took place (1:27 and 2:23) but the rest of Genesis doesn't have the same language, suggesting it as historical. Secular Hebrew scholars also agree that Genesis was written as a historical account based upon the language used. A poetic Genesis also leads to other troubles in the bible. For example if you believe that God created humans over a large amount of time via evolution then Jesus lied to us in Mark 10:6.



Not only that but then Moses messed up while writing Genesis. You see the theory of evolution requires death, disease, and carnivorous activity and this would not have happened before the fall.
And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
(Genesis 1:29-30 ESV)
You also would run into problems with the resurrection. I mean if Genesis was mythical how do we know that the gospels were history? How do we know that Jesus was in fact real? How do we know he died or even rose again?
You can get more in depth even looking at the hebrew words for day and for a period of undefined time. Basically the word used in Genesis means a 24 hour period of time and is used like that through out the bible.

You see when you compromise with creation you start to mess with the whole bible and not just the creation story. God gave Genesis as a historical account and that is what it should be viewed as, otherwise you risk twisting your whole understanding of the bible. You see a lot of Catholics hold a creation via evolution, and JWs hold to none literal days in Genesis.

If you have a hard time believing creation because of all the "evidence" for evolution you see, why not post a few arguments and we can show you how lacking the evolutionary theory really is. I wouldn't mind answering any questions you have and I am sure the others here don't mind either.

[FisherofMen]

There a basically four creation theories in a biblical sense.

1. 6 literal 24 hour days.

2. Day/Age Theory- Where each "day" actually consisted of a much longer period of time.

3. The "Gap theory"- This theory states that an indeterminate amount of time took place between Gen 1:1 and 1:2

4. Literary Framework Theory(Framework Hypothesis)- This theory applies no amount of time to creation but instead points to the literary style of the creation week.

None of these include evolution however.

[Benzene]

2,3,and 4 can and have been used in conjunction with creation via evolution however all but #1 lead to a corruption of the bible beyond Genesis.

[FisherofMen]

Actually I would say 1 and 4 go together very well also. There is a certain literary framework to the creation account. This does not contradict a literal 6 day creation.

The phrase " God said" is repeated at least 10 times in the 1st chapter of Genesis.

The creation progress itself has a beautiful framework as well. Two separate trio of days.
Day 1- Light                    Day 4- Luminaries
Day 2- Sky/Water            Day 5- Fish/Brids
Day 3- Land/Vegetation    Day 6- Animals/Human

In the first trio God forms the earth through separation, in the second He fills the realms He created.

I could go on, but I wont for now.

I think it important to understand and know that the creation account is 100% true (its God's Word afterall) but it was not written to us as a science book.

[Benzene]

Some little known facts about the short falls of framework. The theory is a favourite among people who say they accept biblical authority but don't accept 6 ordinary day creation.
The interpretation of Genesis that gave rise to this theory only began in 1924 by Arie Noordtzij.
Leading framework advocates Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher admitted that this theory was given rise through the desperation of fitting the bible with so-called scientific "facts".
Kline said:
"To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation “week” propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article."
(Kline, M.G., 1996. Space and time in the Genesis cosmology. Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 48(1):2–15.)
Blocher admits that he rejects the plain teaching of Scripture because, ‘The rejection of all the theories accepted by the scientists requires considerable bravado.’
(Blocher, H., 1984. In the Beginning, IVP, p. 50.)

Obviously this theory was fabricated to fit science first then the bible. Is that the way we should look at God's word?

The triad days have there own problems.

The facts were taken from this article http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history which is a critique of the framework hypothesis. I would highly suggest you take a look.

[Cyrusgames]

There would be much to comment on. I'd say those were all pretty good responses.
I will just try deal with this one point for now, as it seems to be in both Benzene's and JackHavoc's responses.

There a basically four creation theories in a biblical sense.

1. 6 literal 24 hour days.

2. Day/Age Theory- Where each "day" actually consisted of a much longer period of time.

3. The "Gap theory"- This theory states that an indeterminate amount of time took place between Gen 1:1 and 1:2

4. Literary Framework Theory(Framework Hypothesis)- This theory applies no amount of time to creation but instead points to the literary style of the creation week.

None of these include evolution however.

2,3,and 4 can and have been used in conjunction with creation via evolution however all but #1 lead to a corruption of the bible beyond Genesis.

Benzene argued that its not poetry because of the wording does not correspond with Hebrew poetry, therefore it is history. I am not a Hebrew scholar so I can't really comment on that. But it seems that my labeling the creation references in the Bible as poetic is misleading.
What I really meant by "poetic" is that the truth in the Bible's creation references function like the truths in poetry. Poetry is often multi-layered, symbolic and nuanced. So take for instance:
Isaiah 45:12  "I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host."

To this we ought to say: "amen, God you are the sovereign One of the universe, world, nations and over Israel." The truth in this passage is not in God literally stretching out the heavens with His hands. But that He is the powerful Creator and sovereign God, and responsible for all that exists. This is what I see Scripture saying about creation. Regardless whether it is literal or not the Scripture is true.

If a Scripture is written in a figurative sense I don't believe it takes away from its meaning, in fact I believe it can add depth to its meaning. Though I admit certain Scriptures have to be taken literally for their real meanings to become clear, such as the resurrection of Jesus and His death and others. At this point you may want to raise up your hands and say I am making arbitrary distinctions. I would argue though that saying the creation stories in the Bible, among other stories, ought to receive this distinction. This is because they share an unmistakable shape or role as the myths of ancient and pre-modern cultures around the world, and much of the content of these myths and stories point to all cultures seeking to understand life's important questions. These myths would serve to provide community and self-identity (for good or for ill). As FisherofMen pointed out about Scripture:

...but it was not written to us as a science book.

(Sorry, perhaps I am misquoting your larger point) This means the important stuff of a creation story is not if it does or does not correlate to time-space reality (not that that would be completely irrelevant though). What wisdom could be learned from the creation stories for our own lives is what I believe is the intention of its writing and most important thing in this kind of writing.

Nevertheless I will agree with you all if there is absolutely no correlation to reality in the myths, symbolism, or figurative writings that the Bible uses then it is really not true or as worthwhile to read. The thing is I do see correlation between whole of the Scriptures and reality, it just sometimes the ways of writing can perhaps boggle the modern scientific mind.

[Crusader]

I believe that the universe was created exactly as described in Genesis, literally, word for word.

"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said, you who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?"
http://www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/h/f/hfirmafo.htm

2 Timothy 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."


God said it, I believe it, that settles it!

[JackHavoc]

Isaiah 45:12  "I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host."

I also believe that God literally stretched the out the universe with his hands.  It would also explain why the universe is expanding.  If God stretched the universe, it would keep expanding according to Newtons first law of motion:  Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

[Benzene]

So, if God created via evolution then there would have to be death disease and carnivorous activity yet Genesis says that there was none before the fall. If this is poetic or figurative then please enlighten me as to what figure it is trying to show?

Jesus lied in Mark? You can't get around that. Jesus took Genesis literally and He said it. It was his basis for marriage, is that also figurative?

One thing I don't understand is why you are supporting your conclusion with roles false religious creation take in false religions..... who cares what role they play in a false religion! That isn't any evidence at all.

[JackHavoc]

So, if God created via evolution

Just saying but "created/creation" with "evolution" doesn't mix very well in the same sentence since their definitions are so far apart.  Basically meaning it's impossible to "create" with "evolution".

Sorry Alpha, just poking in .

[Benzene]

First off it is Benzene not Alpha.....

Second, you are right they don't mix, especially with Genesis no matter how you look at it.

[Angelos]

In the beginning God ... if you have a problem with this truth, you will have a problem with God's Word, period.

You were created. You did not evolve.

Angelos

[Cyrusgames]

I want to first off apologize for no quickly responding to this thread. It has been on my mind for a while, except I have been so busy this past month that I've hardly had a spare moment.

So, if God created via evolution then there would have to be death disease and carnivorous activity yet Genesis says that there was none before the fall. If this is poetic or figurative then please enlighten me as to what figure it is trying to show?

Okay, so this is a big question and I am glad that you brought it up. This not only deals with the philosophical Problem of Evil (How could a good God create a world that has evil in it?), but also a certain elaboration on scriptures in Genesis chapter 3, as well as the questions relating to suffering & sin as discussed in the Bible.

In regards to carnivorous activity in the Bible: Genesis 1:29 said that God intended humanity and animals to be vegan, eating naturally grown plants and fruit of trees. After Adam sinned he was told he would die and had to till the ground and plant his own food in difficulty. After the flood Noah who was assigned to relieve men of their great difficulty working the ground (Genesis 5:29) and then God sanctioned the eating of animals (Genesis 9:2,3). At this point there was fear given to the animals in regards to people. Now interestingly the Bible returns to the original scene of inter-species peace in Isaiah 11:6-9 in the new creation, where the wolf will lie down with the lamb and the child will play beside the cobra.

So if one were to look at evolution and affirm that God created through it, how would that person understand all this?
Benzene is correct to say that it must have occurred before the first human sinned in the evolutionary perspective. That is to say humans were not the cause of carnivorous activity on earth in the historical sense.

Therefore this is not telling us what happened in a historical sense but in a figurative sense.

So, as Benzene asked, what figure is that? Well I can only try my best to understand the Scriptures, and its a great question.  What I think its meaning is is that because we sinned, we make life much more difficult and remove ourselves from God's providence and protection. The story describes this as the advent of death, difficultly finding food for men, and male domination and pain at childbirth for women. Historically I wouldn't think human sin was the actual causation for these specific things necessarily, but that human sin functions as the cause for generally making life much more miserable than it would ever be otherwise and the infliction of God's judgment.

Not only that, but the Bible seems to use the creation story in Genesis to give us a taste of where we came from before sin was, and later shows us a similar and even brighter vision of were we are going when sin will be no more. The whole earth suffers under us because of sin. That in the final stage of the victory of God we will experience living where the effects of our sin will be abolished on the earth, where we don't die, kill or be eaten, or experience disease and pain. So in this way the creation story functions as it should: telling us who were are and why we are here, and then is used prophetically to tell us where we are going. It is really all about us understanding our situation the way God would have us to see it.

In my final point on this, I would like to say we can't assume that the death, pain and suffering that exists in the world always implies sin. Now the Bible will say if you lead an evil profligate life or are evil in any way you will open yourself to the judgment of God. But there is also the story of Job where he suffers and it remains unknown to him why. There is also the teaching of Jesus in  in Luke 13:4,5, where he says: "...those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." So we can't be like Job's friends and always conclude that all the suffering that happens is is always a result of sin. Indeed, the Bible itself does not say that. So it is possible to see suffering existing in creation prior to humankind's sinfulness, yet still say human's sin has brought an incredible amount of suffering to the world related to God's judgment and the suffering sin itself creates.

Jesus lied in Mark? You can't get around that. Jesus took Genesis literally and He said it. It was his basis for marriage, is that also figurative?

No, Jesus didn't lie. When two people sleep together and marry God creates a bond between them. Now Jesus using that story to evidence his teaching does not mean what was described in Genesis 2 had to be an event in space-time history. As their creation story it has the authority to shape their beliefs, and their beliefs about marriage in this instance, and Jesus rightly used it for that purpose.

One thing I don't understand is why you are supporting your conclusion with roles false religious creation take in false religions..... who cares what role they play in a false religion! That isn't any evidence at all.

Okay, so I am not saying false religions are good. I am just saying false religions are made up of people just like the true religion is. I have found no matter what religion a person belongs to the saying is true: "people are people". So, if people need or are greatly impacted by a creation story in Egyptian or Sumerian religion then the Jews would be too.
Additionally, because the Jews were being used as a people of God's salvation and justice on the earth they needed their own story, one inspired by God, and not by demons or corrupt priesthoods or monarchies. The point of it is to shed God's light on the earth.


That is all I can really write tonight. Hopefully I can discuss other people's points later. Thanks.

Cyrusgames,

[Benzene]

I want to first off apologize for no quickly responding to this thread. It has been on my mind for a while, except I have been so busy this past month that I've hardly had a spare moment.

np I know people have other things to do in their lives and that is ok.

You have a lot of ideas that deists have. A god who snapped their fingers and is now letting the reaction happen while they stand back and watch. One thing I want to make known is that we have a God who is active in His creation. This world we live in isn't just a whole bunch of chain reactions as evolution portrays.

Unfortunately you are overlooking Gen 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31 ESV)
Let alone the "it was good" mentioned 6 times.

Are you telling me that God thought disease, suffering, death, pain was good?

I am surprised you have brought up the new world. This point only further destroys your argument when studied closely. As you have said Isaiah 11:6–9; 65:17–25 both mention the new earth that will be created. It is interesting to note that in Isaiah 65:17–25 death and distress and carnivorous activity of animals are distinctly left out of this new world, something that in your view was "very good" to God and was going on from the beginning of creation.
Now you have stopped at Isaiah. How about Acts 3:21 which says:
whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. (Acts 3:21 ESV)
Notice the use of the language here. The word "restored" is used. Now English isn't really that great at portraying the meaning of a word so lets take a look at the greek and what it means. The word used in greek is Apokatastasis which according to my handy-dandy lexicon means "to restore, of the perfect state before the fall". Interestingly enough the greek writers and people of the time believed the world was perfect before the fall (when sin entered the world).

Sin did cause suffering and death. A choice made by our human father and human mother Adam and Eve caused it. I forget the name for it but it is the same reason why some families were slaughtered, including the children for a choice the father made and why husbands 'rule' over their wives but that is another topic. Known as the hierarchical something. Not to mention that no one on this earth including Job is sinless except of course Jesus.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Romans 3:12 ESV)

I don't really understand how, when Jesus says from the beginning it doesn't actually mean from the beginning (you seem to be equivocating) so I won't pursue the point any farther as I believe it is self explanatory.

As for your point on false religions, well they are made by people of a fallen nature and are spiritually dead. If you don't follow Christ you are going to spend a lot of time wishing you had one day.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 ESV)
False religions and evolution are perversions of the truth simple as that.

lol this is great to discuss about the biblical evidence for/against evolution but do you know much about the actual scientific aspects of the theory?

--NEW POST--

Just looked it up and it is called the 'federal headship' not hierarchical. Also further to my point Adam was a man mentioned in the bible that did not evolve through whom sin and death and suffering entered the world.

Death in Adam, Life in Christ
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (Romans 5:12)

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

[Cyrusgames]

np I know people have other things to do in their lives and that is ok.

--Now this is really late coming!

Also: I would like to apologize to the other posters. I feel like Benzene is bringing up points which I can best attempt to discuss.

You have a lot of ideas that deists have. A god who snapped their fingers and is now letting the reaction happen while they stand back and watch. One thing I want to make known is that we have a God who is active in His creation. This world we live in isn't just a whole bunch of chain reactions as evolution portrays.

--I do not believe chemical chain reactions are capable of describing every event that has ever happened. I personally have seen undeniable miracles instantly happen before my eyes through praying. I have experienced things which are best described by the reality of the spiritual.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the creation we experience is set-up to exist as a series of chemical chain reactions. Therefore, we shouldn't make the mistake of some ancients who believed every bolt of lightening (etc) was a direct supernatural work of God.

God does work directly and indirectly in the Bible. To say God works indirectly is not necessarily a deist point of view. For example, the Bible records God judging evil nations with other nation’s armies. God can work indirectly and that might mean that God creates through evolution.

In fact, doesn’t Genesis 1 say “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”   Therefore God’s creative actions can be “letting” things come forth. There is nothing unbiblical about that perspective.

Unfortunately you are overlooking Gen 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31 ESV)
Let alone the "it was good" mentioned 6 times.

Are you telling me that God thought disease, suffering, death, pain was good?

I am surprised you have brought up the new world. This point only further destroys your argument when studied closely. As you have said Isaiah 11:6–9; 65:17–25 both mention the new earth that will be created. It is interesting to note that in Isaiah 65:17–25 death and distress and carnivorous activity of animals are distinctly left out of this new world, something that in your view was "very good" to God and was going on from the beginning of creation.

I find this a difficult point to discuss. So in terms of debate, I say well done Benzene. I originally delayed responding to this thread because I could not come up with a satisfactory response.

I do have a few thoughts on this though so hear me out:


So, despite terrible suffering inherent in the world the world remains very good. It is somewhat of a paradox but think about it. Is childbirth a good thing despite the pain (I am not a woman or a mother so maybe this is the best example for me to use)? It seems like mothers think it is a good thing despite the horrendous pain they have to go through to give birth to the child.

So what does that mean to our argument here? Remember, I do think Genesis 1 describes God’s creation –but in a sense different than yourself. The sense I think it describes God’s creating is in how it portrays God. That might sound confusing, but think about it. I believe the Bible is more concerned with who God is than about pure facts about the world. Therefore, when it says: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” I think it means that creation is very good, and that God intended/wants it to be that way.

So, God creates a good creation because God himself is good. When we look at the fossil record though and see carnivorous animals before the first human could have rebelled and we have to ask: is Genesis 1 describing God’s creation in a literal chronology or is it about figuratively describing our awesome God creating the heavens and the earth.

Isaiah verse you discussed point to a vision of the world again restored to a “very good” state. I also do think the Bible is saying sin corrupted creation, though I do not think that it should be interpreted to be saying that human sin caused everything in the world to not be good. The Bible does look to a time when creation is without sin and God’s kingdom comes. Though you seem to imply (?) that the word ‘restoration’ used in the book of Acts means retroversion back to life in the Garden in Eden (or something?). The Kingdom of God is to one day fill the whole earth, and I believe the imagery it gives for this is greater than the imagery of the earth before the Fall. Therefore, it seems, biblical use of the word ‘restoration’ can be a broader term than simply understood as: “returning to a time before the Fall”. I do not believe this point you make about Acts 3:21 obligates me to believe in a Fall that takes place the way you conceive of it. I believe in the Fall, but I believe the more poignant matter is not a single event 6,000 years ago, but Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned…”

Also, if the Bible is speaking as literally and as scientifically as you are interpreting it I ask a question of you: why if God created everything does it say “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” when obviously the serpent in the garden was not a good creature?

 Might this mean that the Genesis creation account is not a literal-historical account but a holy creation myth/story?